> Is this not libel?
No. “Abusive” is not a fact claim.
No. “Abusive” is not a fact claim.
Facebook deliberately created a set of rules/measures to determine abusive content, specifically such that they couldn’t be accused of being arbitrary, or opinion-driven. So their rules specifically ensure that their determinations are fact-based not opinion-based. If they determine that content has broken their rules on “abusive content” it seems pretty fact-based.
So labeling content as having broken their rules on abusive content is literally making a fact claim.
No, not in the sense required for libel law.
> If they say that the video breaks their rules on abusing content, it goes away from opinion and more into fact.
That would arguably be true if their standards were remotely objective; they are not.
> Facebook deliberately created a set of rules/measures to determine abusive content, specifically such that they couldn’t be accused of being arbitrary, or opinion-driven
Whether or not that is the intent of the rules, the rules are opinion-driven on their face.
> So their rules specifically ensure that their determinations are fact-based not opinion-based
No, they don’t. Have you read their rules?
> . If they determine that content has broken their rules on “abusive content” it seems pretty fact-based.
Really?
---
The following behavior isn't allowed on Facebook:
Posting things that don't follow the Facebook Community Standards (ex: threats, hate speech, graphic violence).
Using Facebook to bully, impersonate or harass anyone.
Abusing Facebook features (ex: sending friend requests to many people you don't know). Overusing features could make other people feel uncomfortable or unsafe. As a result, we have limits in place to limit the rate at which you can use features. Learn more aboutthese limits.
--- [0]
Seems like a whole lot of opinion in there to me, even before lookong at the Community Standards (incorporated by reference as they’ve indicated anything bot following them can be labeled “abusive”.)
But let’s look at them [1]...and find there are no fact-oriented rules ar all, but a statement that “...when we limit expression, we do it in service of one or more of the following values:” followed by a list of vague value statements without factual criteria.